Interesting take on poker pros

[CraigJ]

First let me say I beleive there is a lot of skill in poker. But there is also a lot of luck too. And trust me I know that in the long run skill will win.

Okay quick statistics lesson. In most processes, random variation conforms to a probability distribution know as the normal distribution, which is the most commonly observed probability distribution. It is also known as a bell curve or Guassian distribution. The empirical rule is a handy quick estimate given the mean and standard deviation of a data set that follows the normal distribution. The empircal rule states that for a normal data set 99.7% of all data will fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean.

Okay it doesn't matter if you understood a word of that or not. But apply it to the "luck" in holdem poker. What it says is most people over the course of their life are going to experience close to the same amount of luck when it comes to winning and losing. But there are a few who are going to be more unlucky (more bad beats) than normal and a few who are going to be more lucky (more suck outs) than normal.

Take Phil Ivy, he has the poker skills but I also bet you he falls outside the 99.7% on the lucky side. And I bet most of your best poker pros do as well.

So what I am saying is your best poker players not only have the skill but also have more than their fair share of luck.

[elffaw]

Way to rationalize your failure at poker. "They are pros cause they are lucky!" Yeah, that's it.

[Happytime Harry]

How much is Ivey down online for the year?

Matusow's a luckbox too.

You're just unlucky.

[sevenhigh]

not interesting just not true!!!!

[Ray Of Light]

CraigJ... have you really been on this forum for nearly three years and yet still harbour the belief that good poker pros are just really, REALLY lucky?... oh dear, just where did all your time go?

[Josem]

let's say that you rate Ivey's luck at "42" (or some other number)

Exactly what are you going to do with this information? Why does it matter whether you decree that Phil Ivey is lucky or unlucky?

[CraigJ]

I was just stating an observation. Kind of like the sky is blue. Doesn't really mean a thing to me. But I bet it does to the really lucky or even the really unlucky person. And no not that the sky is blue, the poker observation. I have found you have to be very clear on whay you say when you post here.

[Cent]

I hear what you're saying Craig, but it isn't correct when referring to poker. A lot of poker is getting players to call with the worst hand and knowing how to maximize your winnings with the best hand. For example, let's say that you have top set, and your opponent has top pair, and all the money goes in. It doesn't matter how lucky or unlucky you are, you're going to win the hand. The pros are experts at figuring out weakness and what the other player has, they can almost "see" what their opponents have. They put their money in with the best hand and fold with the worst hand. So with this in mind, luck really doesn't matter too much in regarding how good a poker player is.

[pipedreamz]

i agree with this based on the charts of SnG turbo regulars.

just go to sharkscope and look at the leaderboards. all types of crazy swings

[CraigJ]

Everybody keeps missing my point. I am not trying to equate skill with luck. I am keeping them separate. I am saying the person who has the best skill AND the best luck is going to be the most dominate in the long run.

Again "luck" may just be defined as having the percentages go your way or how many times you beat the percentages. But luck plays a huge role in poker. Many times a poker player can make the right decision but still lose the hand. You are right, luck has nothing to do with how good a poker player is, but it has a lot to do with the final out come of many hands.